BACKGROUND: Blood collection and blood pressure (BP) measurements are routinely performed during the same consultation to assess absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This study aimed to determine the effect of blood collection on BP and subsequent calculation of the absolute CVD risk. METHODS: Forty-five participants aged 58 ± 9 years (53% male) had systolic BP (SBP) measured using clinical guideline methods (clinic SBP). Then, on a separate visit, BP was measured immediately before, during, and after blood collection. Absolute CVD risk scores were calculated (Framingham equation) using SBP from each measurement condition and compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of low (<10%), moderate (10-15%), and high (≥15%) absolute CVD risks among the participants was 67%, 22%, and 11%, respectively, using clinic SBP. SBP values before and during blood collection were significantly higher compared to values after blood collection (130 ± 18 and 132 ± 19 vs. 126 ± 18 mm Hg; p = 0.010 and p = 0.003, respectively). However, there were no significant differences between clinic SBP (128 ± 18 mm Hg) and blood collection SBP (p = 0.99) or the absolute CVD risk scores (7.3 ± 6.5; 7.6 ± 5.9; 7.7 ± 6.1; and 7.1 ± 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.995 for all). The mean intraclass correlation (95% CI) indicated good agreement between absolute CVD risk scores calculated with clinic SBP and each blood collection SBP (0.86 [95% CI 0.74-0.92], 0.85 [95% CI 0.71-0.91], and 0.87 [95% CI 0.76-0.93], respectively; p < 0.001, for all). CONCLUSION: Absolute CVD risk calculation is not affected by use of SBP measurements recorded at the time of blood collection. Therefore, it is acceptable to collect blood and measure BP during the same consultation for absolute CVD risk assessment.
BACKGROUND: Blood collection and blood pressure (BP) measurements are routinely performed during the same consultation to assess absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This study aimed to determine the effect of blood collection on BP and subsequent calculation of the absolute CVD risk. METHODS: Forty-five participants aged 58 ± 9 years (53% male) had systolic BP (SBP) measured using clinical guideline methods (clinic SBP). Then, on a separate visit, BP was measured immediately before, during, and after blood collection. Absolute CVD risk scores were calculated (Framingham equation) using SBP from each measurement condition and compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of low (<10%), moderate (10-15%), and high (≥15%) absolute CVD risks among the participants was 67%, 22%, and 11%, respectively, using clinic SBP. SBP values before and during blood collection were significantly higher compared to values after blood collection (130 ± 18 and 132 ± 19 vs. 126 ± 18 mm Hg; p = 0.010 and p = 0.003, respectively). However, there were no significant differences between clinic SBP (128 ± 18 mm Hg) and blood collection SBP (p = 0.99) or the absolute CVD risk scores (7.3 ± 6.5; 7.6 ± 5.9; 7.7 ± 6.1; and 7.1 ± 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.995 for all). The mean intraclass correlation (95% CI) indicated good agreement between absolute CVD risk scores calculated with clinic SBP and each blood collection SBP (0.86 [95% CI 0.74-0.92], 0.85 [95% CI 0.71-0.91], and 0.87 [95% CI 0.76-0.93], respectively; p < 0.001, for all). CONCLUSION: Absolute CVD risk calculation is not affected by use of SBP measurements recorded at the time of blood collection. Therefore, it is acceptable to collect blood and measure BP during the same consultation for absolute CVD risk assessment.
Authors: Rod Jackson; Carlene M M Lawes; Derrick A Bennett; Richard J Milne; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 29-Feb 4 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R M Conroy; K Pyörälä; A P Fitzgerald; S Sans; A Menotti; G De Backer; D De Bacquer; P Ducimetière; P Jousilahti; U Keil; I Njølstad; R G Oganov; T Thomsen; H Tunstall-Pedoe; A Tverdal; H Wedel; P Whincup; L Wilhelmsen; I M Graham Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Bryan Williams; Neil R Poulter; Morris J Brown; Mark Davis; Gordon T McInnes; John F Potter; Peter S Sever; Simon McG Thom Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-03-13
Authors: Rafael Lozano; Mohsen Naghavi; Kyle Foreman; Stephen Lim; Kenji Shibuya; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Timothy Adair; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Suzanne Barker-Collo; David H Bartels; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Kavi Bhalla; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Soufiane Boufous; Chiara Bucello; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Jonathan Carapetis; Honglei Chen; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Nabila Dahodwala; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Majid Ezzati; Valery Feigin; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Richard Franklin; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Diego Gonzalez-Medina; Yara A Halasa; Diana Haring; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Bruno Hoen; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Summer Lockett Ohno; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Leslie Mallinger; Lyn March; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; John McGrath; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Catherine Michaud; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Charles Mock; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Ali A Mokdad; Andrew Moran; Kim Mulholland; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Kiumarss Nasseri; Paul Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; David Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; C Arden Pope; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Murugesan Raju; Dharani Ranganathan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Felipe Rodriguez De León; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Joshua A Salomon; Uchechukwu Sampson; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; Maria Segui-Gomez; Donald S Shepard; David Singh; Jessica Singleton; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Andrew Steer; Jennifer A Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; Imad M Tleyjeh; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Eduardo A Undurraga; N Venketasubramanian; Lakshmi Vijayakumar; Theo Vos; Gregory R Wagner; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; James D Wilkinson; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Paul Yip; Azadeh Zabetian; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321